DH-Comet, DC-10, 737-MAX: We're sick birds TU-104: Hold my vodka!

@KINGoftheHunters

6 ай бұрын

Zero replies‽ Let me fix that.

@jus4media375

6 ай бұрын

Lol russian propaganda plane never works

@WilhelmKarsten

6 ай бұрын

The DC-10 and 737 have excellent safety records compared to the Comet... even the Tu-104 is safer than the Comet

@hellfire8883

6 ай бұрын

The DC-10 was a good widebody jet. It got a bad rap due to the cargo door issues which stemmed from a faulty locking system that would allow the handle to be closed even though all the locking pins were not properly secured. Once this was fixed it was a very good jet. Everything was good except that locking mechanism. Unfortunately it took a few accidents and hundreds of lives before the issue was resolved. The jet itself was fundamentally solid. The Maxx was flawed with software issues that brought down 2 jets and caused many reported problems. To many complicated software and sensors issues caused by the faulty mcas system made it unreliable. The comet had teething issues due to being the first. Square windows are a no no. Structural issues arose which were pinpointed to starting on the corners of square windows and in general the materials used it was found were inadequate. By the time these issues were fixed and the comet returned a couple crucial years passed now the 707 and 737-200 had debuted and taken over the market. The new comet was a fine jet but the bad taste was still present in the mouths of the ppl and industry so in the end it simply couldn't compete with the American companies.

@WilhelmKarsten

6 ай бұрын

@@hellfire8883 Comet 1 was so badly designed that it could not be made safe to ever fly again, it's airworthiness certification was permanently revoked. Comet 4 has the highest loss rate and fatalities statistics of any jet airliner in history except for the Comet 1.

After the fall of Communism 1991, I was in charge of a state partnership program with Hungary. The first 2 times I flew to Budapest was on an Malev Airlines, Tupolev 134 and then a 154. What a high speed take off. It was later, the Hungarians told me they were nicknamed "the earth darts!" Seems they had some operational problems staying airborne!

@sergeychmelev5270

6 ай бұрын

While this claim for Tu-134 might be somewhat believable as it had its roots in Tu-104, Tu-154 was a completely different aircraft that had much better takeoff and landing specs. Name me a 1970s airliner with MTOW around 230,000lb, and a fully loaded V2 of considerably better than 150 knots. Even Boeing 727 with half the weight of Tu-154 had fully-loaded V2 at 144 knots.

@TinLeadHammer

6 ай бұрын

The have never been the fall of Communism because there have never been Communism.

@andreypetrov4868

6 ай бұрын

​@sergeychmelev5270 It's impossible to prove anything using facts and statistics to the ones who BELIEVE that Soviet aircraft were a piece of crap. They were not perfect as any aircraft but were on oar with their Western counterparts. Anyway as I said the ones who believe that it wasn't the case will not change their mindset.

@hyphessobrycon_herbertaxelrodi

6 ай бұрын

I wouldn't check the facts, you can find it, but several of the Malev's Tupolev 134 were crashed and made a lot of death cases. As well I flew by 134 and it was a very average aircraft, MD-8x made the take off much better

@gregtennessee8249

6 ай бұрын

Trump is bringing back communism, authoritarian dictatorship. 🛑 Stop trump!!! 91 Felony Charges

i had 4 flights in a TU 104b in 1968 smooth comfortable but noisy ,no other complaints

@andreborges2881

6 ай бұрын

Because you did not fall from the sky

@skeetrix5577

Ай бұрын

it's shameful how similar the script from this video is to mustards video. seriously, go watch mustards video "was this the most dangerous aircraft to ever fly?". this video is blatant plagiarism.

@ivankuznetsov8177

8 күн бұрын

Ive been thinking that it was deafeningly noisy. I still remember how I flew a slightly more modern Tu-154M and when I entered the lavatory in the tail I got nearly deafened and scared because I was just four y.o. Somehow it was still fun to fly it

Also American Super Sabre fighter had the same kind of issue. Wingtips stalled, plane was unrecoverable. This problem has NOTHING to do with a fact that this plane design was based on a bomber design. Tu-16 bomber's wings were also prone to stall at wingtips. This was a common mistake of engineers of that era.

@dieselboy610

6 ай бұрын

Good ole Sabre dance?

@AbcdEfgh-sq2tf

6 ай бұрын

Twist the wingtips downwards?

@player1GR

6 ай бұрын

@@AbcdEfgh-sq2tf yes

@kerberach

4 ай бұрын

The only difference now is that usa learned by their faults and russia didnt. Russia still creates planes and helikopters thats falling down from the sky.

@player1GR

3 ай бұрын

@@AbcdEfgh-sq2tf yes

8:11 R.O.T.F.L. "Weak wheel BREAKS." "No air BREAKS."

@kirbyhans5261

6 ай бұрын

No , it's misspelled. Brakes not " breaks".

@the1streich339

6 ай бұрын

Yea i noticed the same thing and couldn't believe this video maker used breaks instead of brakes 😂

@skeetrix5577

Ай бұрын

it's shameful how similar the script from this video is to mustards video. seriously, go watch mustards video "was this the most dangerous aircraft to ever fly?". this video is blatant plagiarism.

Comrades! USSR air engineering was flawless and their planes never crashed! I used to think they did but 5 years in a re-education camp learning to plough the frozen Siberian countryside with my bare hands taught me the error of my thinking.

@k3D4rsi554maq

6 ай бұрын

lol

@bobwilson758

6 ай бұрын

Correct - you poor bastard . Thank goodness you are home again & safe . You are very lucky to have survived the gulag gang - Holy shet . Congrats - LoL. 😂

@skeetrix5577

Ай бұрын

it's shameful how similar the script from this video is to mustards video. seriously, go watch mustards video "was this the most dangerous aircraft to ever fly?". this video is blatant plagiarism.

Take the Train!

Coming into London in 1962 on a PanAm 707, I was treated to seeing two TU-104s at Heathrow. I particularly noted the bombardier position in the glass nose.

@andreypetrov4868

6 ай бұрын

It was not a bombardier position but a navigator one.

@jayoneill1533

6 ай бұрын

@@andreypetrov4868 Exactly, it made it easier for the navigator to follow the iron compass… railroad tracks.

@immikeurnot

6 ай бұрын

@@andreypetrov4868 Suuuure it wasn't a bombardier position. Not like there was inertial navigation or beacons by the time the 104 was designed!

@andreypetrov4868

6 ай бұрын

@@immikeurnot Nothing can substitute visual contact.

@user-ft9ul5ul5v

5 ай бұрын

even transport aircraft in (ex)Soviet era had navigator position well in 1990s. For example that Il which collided with an Aravian plane over India also had a crew of 5 with a detached navigator position below the main cockpit. In fact, too many people made communications difficult and that's exactly what led to a collision.

If the war in Ukraine continues much longer, the Russian military has plans to pull leftover 104s out of mothballs to use as transports for some of their more "low priority" infantry units.

@5anjuro

6 ай бұрын

I doubt there's any mothballed Soviet civilian aircraft left. Everything that could fly has already flown way beyond any limits. In 1990s, 2000s there were still soms Tu-154 around, but probably not anymore. The civilian An-24 are still chugging along, but not for much longer.

Actually, the Tu-104 was operated until 1979. The aircraft is not without flaws, but it was a time of trial and error for aviation in all countries.

@watonemillion

6 ай бұрын

Yes, comrade

@FlyByWire1

6 ай бұрын

There is no plane in aviation history that had such a poor safety record. Stop acting like this was happening in any other country.

@Ja_Mes

6 ай бұрын

@@FlyByWire1are you an idiot he is saying it’s the beginning of commercial airline travel. How long do you think airlines have been around? Do you know there has been more innovation in the last 100 years than ever before? We’re still at the start of aviation in the grand scheme of things. God wtf you’re just so intelligent aren’t you. Big brain guy

@cbh.3030

6 ай бұрын

@@FlyByWire1 The DC-10 ? DC-9 ? DC-8 ? boeing 707 ? all these aircrafts and others had worse safety records fyi stop being biased and read actual statistiques and maybe you will end up doing something productive in your life for once

@FlyByWire1

6 ай бұрын

@@cbh.3030 no they didn’t. Why do y’all get online and just lie? They all had accidents but none of those listed airliners had as many fatal accidents as the Tu-104.

While the Comet was the first jet liner to fly it only succeeded the Canadian C102 jet liner by 12 days. Howard Hughes was so impressed he wanted to license build them in the US. Avro Canada had a large contract to supply it's new CF100 fighter to the Royal Canadian Airforce so the C102 project was dropped . In 1957 Avro unveiled the worlds most advanced fighter the CF105 Arrow which was cancelled due to politics mainly. This in effect destroyed Canadas warbird industry and resulted in US fighter aircraft being license built here.

@bobwilson758

6 ай бұрын

OK

@adotintheshark4848

6 ай бұрын

the Comet would have disappeared except the British used the Comet IV in the military. By the time the bugs were worked out, Boeing's 707 was selling like hotcakes and no one wanted the Comet.

@DavidMScott-cs8pp

6 ай бұрын

@@adotintheshark4848 Amen.. and the 707 stying and underslung engines set the design for jet liners that still persist today. I would imagine that engine servicing on the Comet would be complicated and expensive.

@MothaLuva

6 ай бұрын

@@DavidMScott-cs8ppIts not the 707 that set the standards for later aircraft designs, but simple physics, economical requirements and human technological ability at any given time. Thats why they basically all look the same.

@DavidMScott-cs8pp

6 ай бұрын

@@MothaLuva If simple physics applied then why was the Comet so different. British aircraft design set some great standards in both war and peacetime. But why was the Comet so different ?

I'm puzzled why Dwayne chose not to mention the Tex Johnston Tu-104 vs Boeing 707 face off at the Vancouver Air Show in 1958?

I would love to fly a Tu-104 but only in MS Flight Simulator.

11:00 , fuselage stretched BY 1.2m , not to 1.2m. That would be a very short aircraft 😀

@skeetrix5577

Ай бұрын

it's shameful how similar the script from this video is to mustards video. seriously, go watch mustards video "was this the most dangerous aircraft to ever fly?". this video is blatant plagiarism.

@MrSpringheel

Ай бұрын

seven dwarves air?

3:34 mistake. Not tu-144. Tu-104! Tu-144 was much later.

The 104 was an absolutely beautiful looking plane.

@andrewkhmelkowsky9579

6 ай бұрын

I had a flight in 1972 from Kyev to Leningrad. It was nice

@pinedelgado4743

6 ай бұрын

Agreed!!

@davidebbs6146

6 ай бұрын

Attractive killer, I can see the logic there. Spiders web beauty.

@davidebbs6146

6 ай бұрын

Oi….. How does one spell brakes correctly?

@watonemillion

6 ай бұрын

No, it's ugly like everything the russians build

What is the significance of the photo of the photo of the burnt British Airtours Boeing 737 at 5:54? Not laziness on finding actual Comet footage surely?!

@skeetrix5577

Ай бұрын

it's shameful how similar the script from this video is to mustards video. seriously, go watch mustards video "was this the most dangerous aircraft to ever fly?". this video is blatant plagiarism.

Socialist USSR forced Tupolev to build this in record time for political gain. If Tupolev had taken his time, he would have increased the size of the tailplanes allowing for improved pitch control.

@k3D4rsi554maq

6 ай бұрын

That's sounds right. Communists suffer from magical thinking.

@player1GR

6 ай бұрын

No it's not the cause of the problem. The plane was just prone to develop stall at wingtips. So was some American planes, like a F-86 fighter. Nowadays planes have a bit twisted wings, so wing stalls closer to a fuselage, but wingtips are fine. In case of stall modern planes dive, but old planes pitched up.

@muzmason3064

6 ай бұрын

You do know he was locked up for a while around then just like the space engineers were.

@immikeurnot

6 ай бұрын

@@player1GR Not just "nowadays," and there are other ways to ensure root-first stalls. And wingtip stalls don't cause upward pitch, but tendency to snap-roll.

@skeetrix5577

Ай бұрын

it's shameful how similar the script from this video is to mustards video. seriously, go watch mustards video "was this the most dangerous aircraft to ever fly?". this video is blatant plagiarism.

I'm always down to watch a video on this plane!

5:32 That was the 1985 British Airtours Flight 28M disaster (a 737-200), not a Comet.

@jimcrow8562

6 ай бұрын

Yeah, I stopped watching the video at that point.

Well done!

@skeetrix5577

Ай бұрын

NO, not well done! well STOLEN! it's shameful how similar the script from this video is to mustards video. seriously, go watch mustards video "was this the most dangerous aircraft to ever fly?". this video is blatant plagiarism.

You’ve added a picture of the BA 737 that set on fire, when discussing the comet

@skeetrix5577

Ай бұрын

it's shameful how similar the script from this video is to mustards video. seriously, go watch mustards video "was this the most dangerous aircraft to ever fly?". this video is blatant plagiarism.

The thing was basically just a long-range bomber with seats and fancy paint.. It still carried the front bomber glass nose! And if the pilots didn't like flying it, they kept quiet or else they'd fly one-way to Siberia to join the pilots who survived any accidents.

Tupolev gets all the credit but surely dozens of unknown engineers had a major part in these aircraft.

Very interesting

@skeetrix5577

Ай бұрын

it's shameful how similar the script from this video is to mustards video. seriously, go watch mustards video "was this the most dangerous aircraft to ever fly?". this video is blatant plagiarism.

Yes stuff you and your analytics !

@skeetrix5577

Ай бұрын

it's shameful how similar the script from this video is to mustards video. seriously, go watch mustards video "was this the most dangerous aircraft to ever fly?". this video is blatant plagiarism.

@7:46 Wingspam!

@skeetrix5577

Ай бұрын

it's shameful how similar the script from this video is to mustards video. seriously, go watch mustards video "was this the most dangerous aircraft to ever fly?". this video is blatant plagiarism.

You'd think they'd have at least retrofitted the TU-104 with air brakes or something to slow it down upon landing.

@immikeurnot

6 ай бұрын

Landing speed is dictated by the stall speed of the aircraft, which is dictated by the wing design. Something a lot of people don't understand about aviation is that, generally, you change altitude by changing speed. To climb, you add power and to descend, you reduce it. You don't go up or down by pointing the nose up or down. Faster means more air over the wings means more lift, means you go up and vice-versa. You land at the absolute minimum speed the aircraft will stay in the air without dropping like a rock. Speed brakes won't lower landing speed. They only help decelerate the aircraft, keep speed manageable with your nose down, or (especially with early jet engines before variable stators) let you keep your engine power in a certain range while holding a certain speed.

That Tupolev guy didn’t waste any time with smiling.

@jetblackjoy

2 ай бұрын

This strong man spent several years in gulag. He owes nothing to you, least of all dumb american smiles.

@skeetrix5577

Ай бұрын

it's shameful how similar the script from this video is to mustards video. seriously, go watch mustards video "was this the most dangerous aircraft to ever fly?". this video is blatant plagiarism.

Russian designers seem to favor the negative dihedral.

@immikeurnot

6 ай бұрын

You mean "anhedral."

Still it didn't met accidents like comet did.

@skeetrix5577

Ай бұрын

it's shameful how similar the script from this video is to mustards video. seriously, go watch mustards video "was this the most dangerous aircraft to ever fly?". this video is blatant plagiarism.

I remember in the USSR was a song- joke. Can not reflect the rhythm because of differently sound languages, but sense is - "TU-104 is the best airplane TU-104 will fall down where it wants to"😂

@MattGlucharr

6 ай бұрын

Yeah, there was a song like that. It was sung to the tune of Chopin's funeral march. "Tu-104 is the fastest aeroplane, Tu-104 is the fastest aeroplane...I'd rather go by train, I'd rather go by train..." Although, to tell the truth, the Tu-104 was no better or worse than other first-generation airliners - it experienced everything that happened to its counterparts as they matured. The trouble was that it was kept on the lines way too long - logically, the Tu-104 should have been gone by about 1965. But it turned out that they carried and carried passengers until 1979. She was heavy as an iron, with high fuel consumption, with instruments from World War II, with her braking parachute and high step in the cabin, hiding the wing spars- the flight attendants were tired of dragging their trolleys over them.

@Shaun_Jones

6 ай бұрын

The song went, roughly: “The TU-104 is the best plane in the world. In only five minutes it will deliver you to your grave.”

@player1GR

6 ай бұрын

Ту-104 лучший самолёт За 5 минут до гроба довезёт)

@skeetrix5577

Ай бұрын

you know the song because of how it's shameful how similar the script from this video is to mustards video. seriously, go watch mustards video "was this the most dangerous aircraft to ever fly?". this video is blatant plagiarism.

Nevertheless a fantastic looking machine.

1) You're talking about the comet, showing pics from British Airtours, a B737 that burned in the 80's. 2) OVERSHOOTING the runway is done in the air. On the ground you OVERRUN the runway.

@dx1450

6 ай бұрын

Or more technically, it's a runway excursion.

@user-yi3yx2fn7g

6 ай бұрын

@@dx1450 Also very true.

@skeetrix5577

Ай бұрын

it's shameful how similar the script from this video is to mustards video. seriously, go watch mustards video "was this the most dangerous aircraft to ever fly?". this video is blatant plagiarism.

@user-yi3yx2fn7g

Ай бұрын

@@skeetrix5577 Interesting. I will do this.

Remember 🎶the tu-104 is the greatest in the world, in just 5 minutes it will carry you to your grave🎶

@skeetrix5577

Ай бұрын

it's shameful how similar the script from this video is to mustards video. seriously, go watch mustards video "was this the most dangerous aircraft to ever fly?". this video is blatant plagiarism.

I was often working over in the Central Area at Heathrow and there was no worse aircraft than the TU-104 for the most eye watering totally obnoxious smell that came out of them, even across the other side of the apron, the fumes caused you to choke. Best Dave

@andreypetrov4868

6 ай бұрын

And Boeings smelt like French perfume ?

@dave20thmay

6 ай бұрын

@@andreypetrov4868 I can assure you, That a few years working on departures and arrivals, when the 747 used to appear in the morning like a flock of crows, you would soon know the difference. Those ruzzky. planes were burning something obnoxious.

@nicholasbrowning7410

6 ай бұрын

I am not entirely sure why you chose to misrepresent his statement. He didn't talk about how Boeings smelt at all. I suppose one could conclude that he probably believed that Boeings at the time smelled better than the Tu-104 given that there was no worse aircraft according to him. I doubt he would say they smelled like French perfume. Why would you ask that question?@@andreypetrov4868

@zaichushka

6 ай бұрын

@@andreypetrov4868Boeings are democratic airliners

@kenon6968

6 ай бұрын

Why would that be, was it Soviet jet fuel in general?

Enjoyed the video. You did misspell a word, or more accurately, used the wrong woord. At 8:15 you showed 'breaks' when the correct word is 'brakes'.

@MrDino1953

6 ай бұрын

And when you wrote “woord” you meant “word”.

@Colorado_Native

6 ай бұрын

@@MrDino1953 Yes, and I meant every bit of it. Thanks for the reply.

@lo666zz

6 ай бұрын

@Colorado_Native bet you're an absolute riot at parties.

@Colorado_Native

6 ай бұрын

@@lo666zz Invite me and find out, When I get to your house in my car do you want me to 'break' or do you want me to 'brake'? I gotsta no. Eye'm shure theirs grate food they're. Its a real pleasure to bee invited to you're house. What thyme? Thank you sew much. Thanks four the reply.

@skeetrix5577

Ай бұрын

it's shameful how similar the script from this video is to mustards video. seriously, go watch mustards video "was this the most dangerous aircraft to ever fly?". this video is blatant plagiarism.

Ah, what about the IL-62? And not dangerous per se, but notoriously difficult to get out or fight in the case of fire (which was mercifully rare), the Tristar.

@skeetrix5577

Ай бұрын

it's shameful how similar the script from this video is to mustards video. seriously, go watch mustards video "was this the most dangerous aircraft to ever fly?". this video is blatant plagiarism.

The badger airliner.

@skeetrix5577

Ай бұрын

it's shameful how similar the script from this video is to mustards video. seriously, go watch mustards video "was this the most dangerous aircraft to ever fly?". this video is blatant plagiarism.

In Soviet Russia, jet flies pilot

@skeetrix5577

Ай бұрын

it's shameful how similar the script from this video is to mustards video. seriously, go watch mustards video "was this the most dangerous aircraft to ever fly?". this video is blatant plagiarism.

Past and present tense perform an important function in language, something people who don't care about the information that a language conveys like you just don't get.

I presume you meant BRAKES!

@Dwaynesaviation

6 ай бұрын

Yes

@skeetrix5577

Ай бұрын

​@@Dwaynesaviationit's shameful how similar the script from this video is to mustards video. seriously, go watch mustards video "was this the most dangerous aircraft to ever fly?". this video is blatant plagiarism.

British Airtours aircraft shown is a B737

BRAKES**

@MrDino1953

6 ай бұрын

Perhaps in the case of the Tu-104, he really did mean “breaks”.

@MODECHARLIE

6 ай бұрын

@@MrDino1953 I did wonder if he was being facetious.

Tupolev got into too big of a hurry. He should have redesigned the wings with less sweep to lower the landing speed.

@WilhelmKarsten

5 ай бұрын

It's still a much better design than the de Havilland Comet

BRAKES!

Really cool video, keep it up!! (Although a bit ChatGPT scripting vibes 😅)

@Dwaynesaviation

6 ай бұрын

I like your sense of humour Ruskiy... Thanks for appreciating the hard work.... And yeah AI can do wonders these days, but these videos are days of sleepless nights rather

@user-qe6zx6nc4b

5 ай бұрын

This script is basically a paraphrase of Mustard's video.

@ultravoiid

4 ай бұрын

@@user-qe6zx6nc4b thats what i thought too. quite suspicious.

@user-qe6zx6nc4b

2 ай бұрын

​@@ultravoiid the way they shift and change words reminds me writting a college dissertation.

@skeetrix5577

Ай бұрын

​@@Dwaynesaviation "hard work" my ASS. it's shameful how similar the script from this video is to mustards video. seriously, go watch mustards video "was this the most dangerous aircraft to ever fly?". this video is blatant plagiarism.

Why did no other manufacturer ever use wing blisters for the undercarriage?

5:34 ? "104" is a cursed number for plane names.

There was a saying. Communists always won with propaganda. While the capitalists just won.

@WilhelmKarsten

6 ай бұрын

@@BM-rr1ir At least capitalists can spell propAganda...

It's map of Russia (slightly outdated), not USSR

TU - 104 probably had to land at a faster speed than the F - 104 O Dear ! No reverse thrust …

Wheel breaks…or… wheel brakes?

The producer spelt brakes wrong (breaks - which means something breaks not the wheel brakes!) Get the detail right!

Weak breaks or brakes?

Why was the TU104 so heavy, it was nearly twice the weight of the Sud-aviation Caravelle of similar size and era. Did they use steel instead of aluminium alloys?

@OleDiaBole

6 ай бұрын

It was bigger genius.

@skeetrix5577

Ай бұрын

it's shameful how similar the script from this video is to mustards video. seriously, go watch mustards video "was this the most dangerous aircraft to ever fly?". this video is blatant plagiarism.

Inexeplicably? It's obviously an elevator lock issue of somesort if it throws itself up or down.....what else could it be? Not thrust vectoring.

@mookie2637

6 ай бұрын

Agree. I'm confused by these mysterious "updrafts" that only seem to affect the TU104....

It's time for someone from the countries of the former USSR to release a video in English. About the killer plane Boeing 707, otherwise everyone talks about how dangerous the TU-104 is, without mentioning that all first-generation civil jet aircraft were like this, they don’t mention that 3 times more people died on the Boeing 707 than on the Tu-104, and that Boeing had the same ratio of lost aircraft to those produced as the Tu-104, even slightly higher. But of course it’s only the crooked Soviets who can’t build a normal plane; we Americans are better in everything. However, the Soviets built their supersonic airliner, even before the British and French, no matter what anyone says about espionage, these are different planes, and Boeing wanted to show off so much that it was never able to master its 2707.

The Boeing 707 was way better than the comet

The russian “Comet”.

@WilhelmKarsten

6 ай бұрын

With a better safety record than the British Comet

“Weak breaks” 😅😅😅

What was up with the nose? Is that some kind of observation deck or something?

Can’t imagine losing a engine in a tu- 104 with out ejection system !

Fascinating but the stock photography is not always appropriate or accurate which is very distracting.

What’s amazing is that Russia was advanced enough to send a man into space before the US, but they couldn’t design a safe commercial jet. Even decades later, they are still basically relying on foreign built aircraft.

@2005batman

6 ай бұрын

First of all, and who could? Second - they’re pushing home brew replacement for regional and mid-range passenger jets into production like crazy now. There’s a rumor those may be even decent.

@jds6206

6 ай бұрын

You're confusing the USSR with Russia......the two could not be more different.

@drbichat5229

6 ай бұрын

They can’t design or build a reliable car to this day

@andrewkhmelkowsky9579

6 ай бұрын

Soviet Union was the first one in many direction. And I can tell you, that first sattelite had happened just in 12 year after the awfull war and tottaly destroyed economy. There is no comparison to USA situation. Even more, the first ever mass microchip based radioreceiver was given to americans as souvenir by Nicita Khrushchev in 1965...

@thomthumbe

6 ай бұрын

@@andrewkhmelkowsky9579- The USSR admitted they stole USA engineering and technical specs for all of its electronic components. There is no proof that the USSR produced anything on their own, let alone a simple radio receiver. Any devices inside the USSR at that time were heavily modified from western design, in part because USSR leadership didn’t want Soviet citizens to own a fully capable receiver. Your comment doesn’t add up to truth, but maybe they did produce a few receivers. During the Cold War, western radio receivers were constantly being smuggled across the border because the Soviet equipment was crap.

I'm just going to chalk this one up to "Shit happens", because this was the early jet age, in an era when everything was experimental. During this experimental period, virtually all the early jet aircraft had "fatal" flaws.

@person.w9780

6 ай бұрын

I don't think the 707, DC-8 or British jest were nearly this bad.

@player1GR

6 ай бұрын

@@person.w9780 Tu-104 wasn't bad either. It was just too tricky to fly because of it's swept wing. Usually pilot skills were cause of crashes

@WilhelmKarsten

6 ай бұрын

Not like the de Havilland Comet did... this appallingly bad design was grounded after just 2 years in limited service and its airworthiness certification was permanently revoked.

It's Brakes not Breaks

British really shouldn't comment about early jet airline safety!

@Dwaynesaviation

5 ай бұрын

😂😂

@sandervanderkammen9230

5 ай бұрын

The de Havilland Comet is the worst jet airliner in history.. 1 out of every 2 Comet 1s built were destroyed in accidents.

Excellent strong construction! The engine was much stronger compared to western types, with a large thrust reserve! Multi-purpose use, so economical! Faster speed than western types!

@WilhelmKarsten

6 ай бұрын

Also a better safety record than the de Havilland Comet

I guess the Soviets never saw ergonomics as a safety factor & relied on their operators' professionalism & sheer skill. It had advantages & disadvantage bur sometimes this philosophy would be pushed too far.

@dx1450

6 ай бұрын

But then also blame them when something goes wrong.

It’s crazy this plane was ever certified to fly considering in good conditions it could need to use a parachute to stop just imagine being in an emergency situation with one chance to land going too fast on a short runway

@player1GR

6 ай бұрын

Nope, parachute was a safety addition, it wasn't deployed every time

@WilhelmKarsten

6 ай бұрын

Not as crazy as the de Havilland Comet 1 being certified... 6 crashes in just 2 years of limited service, it was finally grounded in 1954 and its airworthiness certification was permanently revoked

I don't think Tupolev needed the Comet to have him realise the potential of jet travel... they were already working on it but had no reliable engines hence the 114 that flew in 55' and apparently is overlooked here. You need to cite your sources, today, anyone can do a video and post information as "true" with biased and erroneous personal opinions misleading the younger generations that don't care to read old books.

@WilhelmKarsten

6 ай бұрын

Tupolev made safer jets than de Havilland did that's for sure.

Tu-104 was the second passenger jet ever and obviously had some technical flaws, what is quite normal for revolutionary pieces of machinery. Nevertheless Tu-104 was a way better aircraft than Comet and was in service almost for 30 years. Not bad for “fatal design” aircraft 😁🤷‍♂️

@immikeurnot

6 ай бұрын

So revolutionary that not a single piece of its engineering was used on later airliners!

@monstertech8497

6 ай бұрын

@@immikeurnot really? This aircraft looks almost like modern jets having the same scheme. And, this aircraft has circled illuminators while Comet had squared ones😁😁😌

@WilhelmKarsten

5 ай бұрын

​@@immikeurnotI thick you mean to say de Haviland Comet... a textbook example of how not to design a jet airliner.

Brakes stop wheels, not breaks.

Powerful updrafts? Really…That’s absurd. If the pilots had reduced thrust the nose of the jet would immediately fall toward earth and this assent would be stopped. No thrust to overcome gravity and weight and an aircraft can’t climb, period.

Russian Aerospace is right there with Chernobyl in the conversation regarding systemic corruption and incompetence ruining the lives of innocent ppl.

You already effed up by saying the TU-104 flew great distances. Learn your craft or stop uploadig crap.

Not much information is available. TU-104 was designed on Western "templates" so it is not to blame. Most of the accidents of TU-104 were due to shocking irresponsibility of ground crews, making their own "judgements" on what to do. In many cases they were simply drunk, bearing in mind that in Russia when you stand on both feet you are not considered as drunk. In many cases apparent flaws in design were not dealt with (i.e. brakes) - they didn't bother and there was no money for it. Don't apply your way of thinking into a Soviet system!

@sandervanderkammen9230

5 ай бұрын

The worst jet airliner in history is without any doubt the British de Havilland Comet. The Comet has the highest loss rate and fatalities statistics of any jet airliner ever built.

Your English needs a serious overhaul. Ingenious stroke of brilliance? Inadequately powerful? Forget checklists, just a simple dictionary will do.

Sooo, a history of aircraft instead of getting to the point of the Tu-104. Faster and more accurate to look it up on Wiki.

What the hell is the kind of map of the USSR in 1956 ? Some alternative history fantasy?

It's still a sleek and imposing airplane like you said. It could use fly-by-wire controls. This will fix the control mishaps.

1:40 rants about "short range" without specifying any dates, and showing aircraft from different decades: IL-14 and Tu-134. Conveniently forgets about IL-18 that required only a single stop between Moscow and Vladivostok, and Tu-114 that did it without any stops at all.

@janfrosty3392

6 ай бұрын

That is a propaganda for you

@yuriy797

6 ай бұрын

Серёга тебе сколько лет?

Several jarring errors, like the BA Airtours 737 shot when talking about the Comet crashes and several typos, break/brake etc, but otherwise very interesting

Good designers and engineers working for a corrupt government. Any new aircraft has its teething problems which is understandable, but to refuse to correct errors is criminal.

@WilhelmKarsten

5 ай бұрын

Indeed, the exact same thing happened with the British de Havilland Comet... a plane with an even worse safety record than the Tu-104

@bkucinschi

5 ай бұрын

@WilhelmKarsten : Comet was the first ever passenger jet, and de Haviland put a lot of effort to find the root cause of the crashes ( and found the effect of metal fatigue that nobody knew at that time). They improved the Comet but too late, its reputation was tarnished. But the Soviets simply ignored the problems of Tu jets. Totally different mindset.

@WilhelmKarsten

5 ай бұрын

@@bkucinschi The Comet Disaster is the worst engineering failure in aviation history and the real tragedy is that it could have been easily prevented if de Haviland had simply used established industry standards and practices for the design and fabrication of pressurized aircraft with airframes made with riveted aluminum. De Havilland had very limited knowledge or experience in all-metal aircraft and pressurized cabins, they were still building jets made primarily from wood and fabric.

@sandervanderkammen9230

5 ай бұрын

​@@bkucinschiThe first successful airworthy jet airliner is the Boeing 707 series, a revolutionary aircraft so advanced that it completely transformed air travel and the aviation industry... a plane so good that they are expected to remain flying until 2050.

@bkucinschi

5 ай бұрын

@@sandervanderkammen9230 : Very true. However keep in mind that Boeing learned from Comet's debacle. The pioneers assume all the risks by going into the unknown.

I disagree with the author. Despite technical problems and the fact that the aircraft was difficult to sell outside the USSR, it was one of the first passenger jets in the world and an aircraft that was in use during a period of technological change from 1956-1981.

Better than British engineering

@Dwaynesaviation

6 ай бұрын

Do we still make planes? 😂😂

@WilhelmKarsten

6 ай бұрын

@@Dwaynesaviation indeed, try to name a British jet aircraft still in production?

@Dwaynesaviation

6 ай бұрын

de Havilland Comet 😂😂😂😂

@xandervk2371

6 ай бұрын

No it wasn't.

@WilhelmKarsten

6 ай бұрын

@@xandervk2371 Absolutely it was better than an British jet airliner at the time.. The Comet Disaster was a unmitigated failure and a very shameful and humiliating chapter in British aviation history.

Yet there are people, who believe ruzzkie technology is/was superior :D Their military high-end technology myth has just been shattered to pieces, however

@WilhelmKarsten

6 ай бұрын

Well the Tu-104 was certainly a better aircraft than the British de Havilland Comet

'Templetes' 'breaks'? Incorrect information and janky graphics? No thanks.

Well it wasn't a "Propaganda" victory, it was clearly a victory.

@5:58 man you really are terrible at fact checking information you post. Ugh all you TU-104 KZreadrs just spout incorrect information over and over. Here you go. “On March 22, 1956, the crew under his command performed a flight on the Tu-104 Moscow-London - the first international flight of a domestic jet passenger aircraft.” - Anatoly Starikov

Hahaha. Comparing to the Comet which had 7 out of 21 built crash is kind of ludicrous.

@WilhelmKarsten

6 ай бұрын

Indeed, without any doubt the Comet was the worst jet airliner ever built.

I flew the Tu-104 several times in my life, it was a wonderful aircraft for its time. This plane was very comfortable, quiet, spacious, with a very nice interior. That's why I didn't like this viciously stupid video.

@AVA-gk1uz

6 ай бұрын

haha you're delusional and biased, probably one of those Russians who miss the Soviet Union. I flew it too, it was shit. Like most domestic Soviet technological creations.

@WilhelmKarsten

6 ай бұрын

​@@AVA-gk1uzThe Tu-104 actually has a better safety record than the de Havilland Comet

Aviones copiados q los ameicanose mala calidad

It was no propaganda.. the Russian built the plane for real … except yea few unfinished details in such short time. But hey look at the fraction they spent on the damn thing .. unlike the British on their comment ??

It was absolutely terrible airplane, CSA was basically forced to fly these jets.

still better and safer plane compared to western planes of that time

@WilhelmKarsten

6 ай бұрын

It was certainly better than the British de Havilland Comet

Russian made crapola. Shalom

Tu-104 205 were built, 37 crashed or 18.0%. DH-106 Comet 114 pieces were built, 25 of them crashed, which is 21.9%. B707 1010 copies were produced, 174 crashed, or 17.2%. Sud Aviation Caravelle built 282 pieces, 64 crashed, or 22.7%. DC-8 produced 556 copies, of which 83 crashed, or 14.9%. The safest jet aircraft of the first generation is the Tu-114. Of the 33 built, one or 3.03% crashed. As you can see, the Tu-104 is not much more dangerous than the Boeing 707. And it is much safer than all European jet aircraft. The DC-8 looks the best against the general background. Tell us why McDonnell-Douglas no longer builds passenger planes. Does the war bring more profit?

@sandervanderkammen9230

5 ай бұрын

*COMET 1 has a 46% percent loss rate, the highest in jet airliner history.*

Is there a Soviet designed airplane, of ANY type, which wasn't a western copy, to one degree or another, and actually performed well? Answer: No. Not. A. One.

@kravchan

6 ай бұрын

Pretty much this 👏👏👏

@andrewkhmelkowsky9579

6 ай бұрын

Yes, there is another example of pretty good soviets design. To be honest that aircraft has been producing since 1947 - An-2 (Antonov-2).

@Shaun_Jones

6 ай бұрын

@@andrewkhmelkowsky9579 AN-2 is a wonderful aircraft, I only wish that it was possible to find spare parts that were manufactured in this century.